Filed: Sep. 18, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-6579 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DAVID L. HUGGARD, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, District Judge. (1:13-cr-00005-JPJ-1) Submitted: September 13, 2018 Decided: September 18, 2018 Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-6579 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DAVID L. HUGGARD, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, District Judge. (1:13-cr-00005-JPJ-1) Submitted: September 13, 2018 Decided: September 18, 2018 Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. D..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-6579 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DAVID L. HUGGARD, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, District Judge. (1:13-cr-00005-JPJ-1) Submitted: September 13, 2018 Decided: September 18, 2018 Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David L. Huggard, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: David L. Huggard appeals from the district court’s orders denying his motion to strike or modify conditions of his supervised release and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Huggard, No. 1:13- cr-00005-JPJ-1 (W.D. Va. Apr. 23, 2018 & May 10, 2018) We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
